Oh, sure. I don't mind talking about it. It's just long and basically could be a dissertation.
First there's the root that it is bouncing off of: transmisandry.
Then there's the origin of—or more precisely the people responsible for popularizing—the word and the context in which I see it continue to get used. Finally there's what "androphobia"—as in the clinical word—actually looks like and why it exists (androphobia is like arachnophobia, not like homophobia).
So for the first part: there's been this attempt to define "transmisandry" as the unique discrimination that is experienced by transmasc individuals. Which I do not in any way deny happens, the problem here is twofold:
1. Misandry isn't real. There's not a systemic, institutional bias against men.
2. Transmisogny is _not_ how misogyny applies to trans people, it is about the intersection of two _marginalized_ groups and the unique attributes discrimination takes in those cases.
This is actually _really important_ because we don't want to normalize "misandry" as a concept of a marginalized group—that's some serious MRA BS right there—and because it means that the terms are not actually parallels of each other.
One is talking about discrimination of transmasc people.
The other is talking about the intersection of transphobia and misogyny.
These are not the same thing. Not remotely.
Not for nothing: we also don't do this pairing with _any other_ group
This goes back to what Serano pointed out in Whipping Girl and in later interviews, and also ties back into the definition of oppression (to oppress, to cage in): it's the intersection that is important when we talk about transmisogyny, the same way it is the intersection that is important in the discussion of misogynoir.
Because the combination is fundamentally different than either individually.
This is then made worse by the use of the term "androphobia" (part 3).
Part two: some of the people who were responsible for popularizing the term originally were, uh.
Let's call them hellishly problematic and leave it at that?
Which is one thing, but then that legacy lives on in how the term gets used today.
Because, much like with MRAs, there are real things to talk about but I almost _never_ see the advocacy in those contexts. Rather it is almost always "time to talk about how trans women are terrible."
Much like how MRAs could talk about, say, circumcision or toxic masculinity but they usually end up spending their energy going after women and/or feminists, usually when I see "transandrophobia" (or transmisandry) it is going to be followed by talking, not about the medical establishment going after trans men, it's going to be followed by talking about "bæddelism" (in this, the year 2024) or—at best—how trans women "get to be loud and proud but not us."
MacOS 15.1 brings a nice handful of bug fixes to Apple’s audio system, which will benefit users of all of our products. See this post for full details, then update your Mac to 15.1.
Apple this week updated several of its Mac product lines, as well as the Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse, and Magic Trackpad accessories. These Macs have been updated with variants of the M4 chip, the same chip that was introduced with the 2024 iPad Pro.
Att the moment this will be accessible to people who are not totally blind. There's supposed to be voice announcement next year. Sadly, deafblind are still shut out of this.
LibreOffice Conference 2024 (Luxembourg) group photo Once a year, the LibreOffice community gathers for a global community event: the LibreOffice Conference.
phoronix covers my work on OpenPaX, a patch to restore userspace W^X and some other common sense functionality from PaX: phoronix.com/news/Edera-OpenPa…
this patch is the cornerstone of the new “alpine hardened” project, which is intended to produce a spin of alpine which is similar to the old grsecurity days of alpine.
Enterprise security firm Edera today is announcing OpenPaX that they promoted in their advance press notice as a 'new open-source alternative to GrSecurity.
Mx Verda
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Mx Verda • • •Oh, sure. I don't mind talking about it. It's just long and basically could be a dissertation.
First there's the root that it is bouncing off of: transmisandry.
Then there's the origin of—or more precisely the people responsible for popularizing—the word and the context in which I see it continue to get used. Finally there's what "androphobia"—as in the clinical word—actually looks like and why it exists (androphobia is like arachnophobia, not like homophobia).
1/
Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •So for the first part: there's been this attempt to define "transmisandry" as the unique discrimination that is experienced by transmasc individuals. Which I do not in any way deny happens, the problem here is twofold:
1. Misandry isn't real. There's not a systemic, institutional bias against men.
2. Transmisogny is _not_ how misogyny applies to trans people, it is about the intersection of two _marginalized_ groups and the unique attributes discrimination takes in those cases.
2/
Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •This is actually _really important_ because we don't want to normalize "misandry" as a concept of a marginalized group—that's some serious MRA BS right there—and because it means that the terms are not actually parallels of each other.
One is talking about discrimination of transmasc people.
The other is talking about the intersection of transphobia and misogyny.
These are not the same thing. Not remotely.
Not for nothing: we also don't do this pairing with _any other_ group
3/
Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •This goes back to what Serano pointed out in Whipping Girl and in later interviews, and also ties back into the definition of oppression (to oppress, to cage in): it's the intersection that is important when we talk about transmisogyny, the same way it is the intersection that is important in the discussion of misogynoir.
Because the combination is fundamentally different than either individually.
This is then made worse by the use of the term "androphobia" (part 3).
4/
Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •Part two: some of the people who were responsible for popularizing the term originally were, uh.
Let's call them hellishly problematic and leave it at that?
Which is one thing, but then that legacy lives on in how the term gets used today.
Because, much like with MRAs, there are real things to talk about but I almost _never_ see the advocacy in those contexts. Rather it is almost always "time to talk about how trans women are terrible."
5/
Hrefna (DHC)
in reply to Hrefna (DHC) • • •Much like how MRAs could talk about, say, circumcision or toxic masculinity but they usually end up spending their energy going after women and/or feminists, usually when I see "transandrophobia" (or transmisandry) it is going to be followed by talking, not about the medical establishment going after trans men, it's going to be followed by talking about "bæddelism" (in this, the year 2024) or—at best—how trans women "get to be loud and proud but not us."
6/